Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view"expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]

David Masover
2006-08-01T17:03:10Z

Theodore Tso wrote:

> Ah, but as soon as the repacker thread runs continuously, then you
> lose all or most of the claimed advantage of "wandering logs".
[...]
> So instead of a write-write overhead, you end up with a
> write-read-write overhead.

This would tend to suggest that the repacker should not run constantly,
but also that while it's running, performance could be almost as good as
ext3.

> But of course, people tend to disable the repacker when doing
> benchmarks because they're trying to play the "my filesystem/database
> has bigger performance numbers than yours" game....

So you run your own benchmarks, I'll run mine... Benchmarks for
everyone! I'd especially like to see what performance is like with the
repacker not running, and during the repack. If performance during a
repack is comparable to ext3, I think we win, although we have to amend
that statement to "My filesystem/database has the same or bigger
perfomance numbers than yours."